Tamiya's new 1:32 scale Spitfire Mk.IX

[Miccara]

I've noticed there is no cushioned headrest in the 1:32 scale Spitfire Mk.IX.

Is this correct for this version?

[Jennings]

I've noticed there is no cushioned headrest in the 1:32 scale Spitfire Mk.IX.

Is this correct for this version?

Yes. The head rest was delted when they figured out that parachute straps were getting caught on it when pilots bailed out. Several were killed as a result. No Spitfire after the Mk.V had a head rest. Seafires did keep the head rest because of the nature of carrier ops.

J

[toadwbg]

interesting! I just noticed the same thing on my 1/48th Hasegawa Spitfire the other day. I said " Where's that darn headrest? ".

[Matt]

It is interesting. Especially with Spitfires as you can never say anything is 100%.

PL775, a PRXI with a clear headrest, and very much post Mk V.

Was this a pilot preference ?, a unit preference ?, a PR vs F mod ?, a post war mod ? , I have no idea. But I had a few comments on including the headrest when I built a model of this aircraft. (and this new Tamiya kit is so crying out for a PRXI conversion so I can build another.....)

This rule of thumb is probably correct in the majority of cases, but as always, if you have references for a specific aircraft, check them.

Cheers,

Matt

[Jennings]

PL775, a PRXI with a clear headrest, and very much post Mk V.

Was this a pilot preference ?, a unit preference ?, a PR vs F mod ?, a post war mod ? , I have no idea. But I had a few comments on including the headrest when I built a model of this aircraft. (and this new Tamiya kit is so crying out for a PRXI conversion so I can build another.....)

This rule of thumb is probably correct in the majority of cases, but as always, if you have references for a specific aircraft, check them.

The long range PR Spits had them simply because the pilots were enduring long range, high altitude, very tiring flights. I'd imagine the thinking was that they were not generally engaged in active combat, and their pilots were thus less likely to need to bail out in a hurry (where the straps were getting hung on the head rest). A case of benefit outweighing risk.

I think Edger has pretty well shown that on standard fighter Spits after the Mk.V the head rest was deleted and not reinstated. I've not seen a photo of any fighter Spit later than a Mk.IX with one.

J

[Matt]

The long range PR Spits had them simply because the pilots were enduring long range, high altitude, very tiring flights. I'd imagine the thinking was that they were not generally engaged in active combat, and their pilots were thus less likely to need to bail out in a hurry (where the straps were getting hung on the head rest). A case of benefit outweighing risk.

I think Edger has pretty well shown that on standard fighter Spits after the Mk.V the head rest was deleted and not reinstated. I've not seen a photo of any fighter Spit later than a Mk.IX with one.

J

Agreed. I had pretty much made the same assumption, and if Edger says it, then far be it from me to argue.

Sometimes these broad blanket statements get made and passed around and end up becoming gospel.

I was just illustrating an example where I have had the use of a headrest on a late model Spitfire questioned, when the photographic evidence showed it to be there.

Cheers,

Matt

[Edgar]

There are photographs of P.R. Marks, just off the production line, and they're missing headrests, so I'd suspect that it was a pilot/unit decision to use them. P.R. units were (almost) a law to themselves, as regards camouflage, so the use of the headrests would have been fairly small beer. It could have been for comfort; it could have been part of the sighting "system," that they used. It was fairly common to have sighting marks somewhere on the wing edges, or even inside the canopy bulges, so keeping your head in an exact position could have had some importance, at the height at which they flew; get the angle slightly wrong, and the whole trip would be wasted.

Edgar